Clearly has the form of a symref, and should be caught by strict -- but it's not. This was reported by me and mjd to p5p a while ago and it's an intentional exception to stricture. References:
my report, mjd's report of nearly the same thing, the eventual explanation. The short version is that strict refs only applies to $%@* things, not &.

Comment on
Re: Is this a symbolic reference?
Download CodeReplies are listed 'Best First'.